[superuser2]

If you oppose copyright, you are required to oppose Free Software. "Creators and makers should have the right to determine how and where the work they own is distributed" is the only reason copyleft licenses have any power.

You do not get to be a copyright abolitionist and a supporter of mandatory source code distribution at the same time.

There seems to be a lot of overlap between these communities, and the cognitive dissonance is just stunning.

[saint_fiasco]

I think you missed the point of Free Software entirely.

The GPL, like the Discordian Kopyleft, is a legal exploit, or a hack if you prefer, that uses a silly IP law to nullify itself.

If some people are using IP law to restrict the freedom of users and makers of software, why can't they use the law to defend themselves? It's like complaining that anarchists are hypocrites for calling the police when they are victims of crime.

[superuser2]

In the absence of copyright, you would be free to do whatever you want want, including modify Free Software and redistribute your modified binary without source code. Every GPL and AGPL license is effectively downgraded to BSD.

In a world where selling software is less relevant than selling network access to software or devices with software on them, this places companies at a huge advantage (since they don't really need copyrights on binaries) but the Free Software community can no longer forcibly extract the source code of derivatives.

[JoeAltmaier]

I was with you until the horrible example. Of course Anarchists are hypocrites. (They would be the first to go in a general breakdown of society.)

[saint_fiasco]

An anarchist explained to me that if they are forced to pay taxes and follow laws and all that, they should at least enjoy the advantages, even if they would prefer to forego those advantages if they were then free from taxes and laws.

Much like a significant minority of Free Software advocates (notably not Stallman) believe that the ideal is to have no IP at all, but that since we have them whether we want them or not, Free Software and Kopyleft are a valid defense mechanism.

[JoeAltmaier]

...and in that sense they act hypocritically. Its a fair cop.

The Anarchist claim is nonsense. They want no government, because it would be better. Yet when they get a free chance to act out that scenario (taking care of things on their own) still they call on the man. In what way would it hurt them to NOT call the cops after they've been mugged? They've already paid the taxes, so no marginal cost. It would let them enjoy the experience of their utopian society with no further cost to them.

I call that hypocrisy to the max.

[saint_fiasco]

I think there is a cost. Maybe in an anarchic society, they would pay for a security company, but they can't afford to pay for both public security (taxes for the police) and private security. Since they are forced to pay for the police anyway and can't afford both, it makes sense to use their services even if they believe they are inferior.

Or perhaps they are trained in the use of deadly firearms and believe they can protect themselves from crime using that but they live in a country that prohibits firearm use.

The point is, sometimes we can't act as if we already live in utopia. To reach utopia we have to get there from a place that exists in reality, not from a fantasy ideal world.

[mdpopescu]

Because if I shoot the mugger instead, I get arrested by the same police I've already been forced to paid for. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Edit: incidentally, I have called the cops three times in my life. The first two times I was told "it's not my problem". The third time they just hadn't showed up in 15 minutes, so I got bored and left.]

[JoeAltmaier]

Go right to shooting the guy, huh? Now I know something about how anarchists think.

How about we start with, do your own investigating, hire a private investigator, put up security cameras etc. You know, the things you'd be forced to do if Anarchy was actually in operation. Too much trouble? Exactly why we have civil societies.